Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Expanded Voluntary HIV Testing in India
Venkatesh, Kartik K.
Becker, Jessica E.
Nakamura, Yoriko M.
Flanigan, Timothy P.
MetadataShow full item record
CitationVenkatesh, Kartik K., Jessica E. Becker, Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy, Yoriko M. Nakamura, Kenneth H. Mayer, Elena Losina, Soumya Swaminathan, Timothy P. Flanigan, Rochelle P. Walensky, and Kenneth A. Freedberg. 2013. “Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Expanded Voluntary HIV Testing in India.” PLoS ONE 8 (5): e64604. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064604.
AbstractBackground: Despite expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), most of the estimated 2.3 to 2.5 million HIV-infected individuals in India remain undiagnosed. The questions of whom to test for HIV and at what frequency remain unclear. Methods: We used a simulation model of HIV testing and treatment to examine alternative HIV screening strategies: 1) current practice, 2) one-time, 3) every five years, and 4) annually; and we applied these strategies to three population scenarios: 1) the general Indian population (“national population”), i.e. base case (HIV prevalence 0.29%; incidence 0.032/100 person-years [PY]); 2) high-prevalence districts (HIV prevalence 0.8%; incidence 0.088/100 PY), and 3) high-risk groups (HIV prevalence 5.0%; incidence 0.552/100 PY). Cohort characteristics reflected Indians reporting for HIV testing, with a median age of 35 years, 66% men, and a mean CD4 count of 305 cells/µl. The cost of a rapid HIV test was $3.33. Outcomes included life expectancy, HIV-related direct medical costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and secondary transmission benefits. The threshold for “cost-effective” was defined as 3x the annual per capita GDP of India ($3,900/year of life saved [YLS]), or for “very cost-effective” was <1x the annual per capita GDP ($1,300/YLS). Results: Compared to current practice, one-time screening was very cost-effective in the national population (ICER: $1,100/YLS), high-prevalence districts (ICER: $800/YLS), and high-risk groups (ICER: $800/YLS). Screening every five years in the national population (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and annual screening in high-prevalence districts (ICER: $1,900/YLS) and high-risk groups (ICER: $1,800/YLS) were also cost-effective. Results were most sensitive to costs of care and linkage-to-care. Conclusions: In India, voluntary HIV screening of the national population every five years offers substantial clinical benefit and is cost-effective. Annual screening is cost-effective among high-risk groups and in high-prevalence districts nationally. Routine HIV screening in India should be implemented.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11708566